3 months into 6 month gig, no right to issue notice

[AMH]

whats the working relationship with the permy? do you work under them, do they work under you.
Do you need to interact with that person at all or can you go via someone else, etc.

[BolshieBastard]

I don't believe that a client usually uses an MoO clause - they normally have a clause which specifically says "no work, no pay" (separate from any MoO clause) or one which allows for immediate termination.

I believe that if you have accepted the work, then you have an obligation to do it. Having accepted the work, I don't think you can turn round and say "changed my mind, I'm not doing it and there's nothing you can do about it".

But since there is no test case, you could take the risk that you'll be OK and invoke the clause.

What are you talking about? Of course clients use MOO! They may not state directly under para 5.a.iv of sub section 4, the MOO clause states we do not have to give you work blah, blah, blah but, that's what they are using when they say 'dont come in tomorrow'!

You must have strange contracts if there's a specific clause that says 'no work, no pay'!

[TheFaQQer]

What are you talking about? Of course clients use MOO! They may not state directly under para 5.a.iv of sub section 4, the MOO clause states we do not have to give you work blah, blah, blah but, that's what they are using when they say 'dont come in tomorrow'!

You must have strange contracts if there's a specific clause that says 'no work, no pay'!

Every contract I've had has had

- no work, no pay (or a variation)
- right of immediate termination under certain circumstances
- separate MoO clause

I can't comment on whether they are strange or not compared to anyone else, but they are the norm to me. The only time a client has terminated, it was using the right of immediate termination clause not anything else.

[billybiro]

(s)he dumped you? you shouldn't fraternise with the staff!!

I had a situation where a member of staff (business owner of a project) was driving me insane (on a professional level) and came close to quitting a gig (which had a five day either way notice period incidentally); I took a constructive sickie for a couple of days, got pissed with a mate, decided "**** you, this application will get finished" and generally got my head straight and manned the **** up. The application is still live, extensively used by the client, the gig was worth in excess of another hundred thou, and there is certainly potential for revisiting the application for a version 2 with a different business owner.

Step back and rationalise, is what I am saying.

And whilst all of the above is true, just for balance I'll add that sometimes it's important to remember that life is short, money isn't everything, and spending (approx.) 1/3rd of your life in "work", it has to be something you can at least "easily put up with" if not outright enjoy.

Forcing yourself to stay in an untenable situation that you genuinely despise just because you get to invoice for that time can be a pyrrhic victory.

[jamesbrown]

Obviously Im not a lawyer but I cant stand this idea that's gained traction here recently.

MOO is not limited to the client. One or two people seem to be of the opinion its fine for the client to use MOO when they want to get rid of a contractor mid contract and not pay notice but is of limited use to the contractor.

MOO is effective for both parties for the duration of the contract. I have never found anything in any of my contracts that states, indicates or suggests I could only use MOO at renewal time.

If a client can use MOO at anytime during a contract, unless your contract says different, its my opinion you can as the contractor also use it at any time if \ when you want to get out of a contract.

That said, Im not aware of any contractor using MOO and until there's a test case, there is no definitive answer so, use it if you feel the need.

I think you're confused about the meaning of lack of MoO. It relates to the lack of obligation to offer work (on the client side) or to accept work (by YourCo) that is outside of the contractual terms, including work that is outside of the scope of an agreed schedule of work, such as after an agreed schedule of work (or the contract) has been completed. It certainly does not give carte blanche to refuse the delivery of work to which YourCo is contractually obligated (e.g. via a schedule of work), although you can certainly substitute or subcontract if the contractual terms allow that or end the contract on terms that are prescribed in the contract.

[northernladuk]

I don't believe that a client usually uses an MoO clause - they normally have a clause which specifically says "no work, no pay" (separate from any MoO clause) or one which allows for immediate termination.

I believe that if you have accepted the work, then you have an obligation to do it. Having accepted the work, I don't think you can turn round and say "changed my mind, I'm not doing it and there's nothing you can do about it".

But since there is no test case, you could take the risk that you'll be OK and invoke the clause.

I would agree with this...

I don't think that every days work is down to MoO.. It's just client supplier business and the differences between the two parties. It isn't a level playing field where what he does is good for you. One has the cash, the other wants the cash and has to do something for it. That is going to change the mechanics considerably and the balance of power/dependency/control etc shift because of it. The expectations from both parties are different as well. I think this relationship has to be considered instead of just saying MoO's good for one so it's good for the other. What exactly these mechanics are called I don't know but I don't think it should come under MoO....

but...

As TF says it's never been tested in court which could speak volumes. I am sure there are many many instances of a client breaking what BB thinks is MoO but not one case in court???

You must have strange contracts if there's a specific clause that says 'no work, no pay'!

Every contract I have had says I don't get paid unless I have a signed timesheet. I don't work, I don't have a timesheet, I don't get paid. Isn't that the same?

[northernladuk]

I think you're confused about the meaning of lack of MoO. It relates to the lack of obligation to offer work (on the client side) or to accept work (by YourCo) that is outside of the contractual terms, including work that is outside of the scope of an agreed schedule of work, such as after an agreed schedule of work (or the contract) has been completed. It certainly does not give carte blanche to refuse the delivery of work to which YourCo is contractually obligated (e.g. via a schedule of work), although you can certainly substitute or subcontract if the contractual terms allow that or end the contract on terms that are prescribed in the contract.

I'd agree with this as well...

[Jubber]

I don't know any "boss" (please note inverted commas) who would want to keep someone on a project who didn't want to be there. Go and talk to the decision maker - I'm sure you'll be out quite quickly.

[unixman]

I once had a contract where another contractor and me both had serious problems with the same permie, who we had to work with a lot of the time. It was down to his personal conduct.

We discussed it with the agent, who discussed it with the client's manager and (I was told) the chap in question. His conduct didn't improve, however. A few weeks later, I politely declined the three-month renewal (giving some bland reason, but the agent and client probably guessed the real reason).

My advice with people being silly is to treat it like "water of a ducks back" - up to a point. The chap in question was *well* beyond that point for a significant amount of the time, and as my warchest allowed it, I walked. As I saw it, he was a problem and he was the client's problem, not mine. Three months on the bench was a relief, frankly.

So:
- it helps enormously if other people also have problems with the person. Also reduces your stress as you can discuss it with them.
- don't put up with unbearable stress.
- Leave, but not under a cloud.